euthanasia

"If you want to make laws that affect disabled people, make laws to help us live - to help us be contributing and productive citizens of this country who can live on the same basis as other Australians."

I've debated a number of pro-euthanasia advocates over the past few years. Some advocate publicly for a very narrow criteria that limits access to euthanasia to a few; while others advocate for an almost 'open slather' approach.

Why should the dying have all the best deaths? Fatal illness is not the only form of terrible human suffering: on the contrary, the briefest of reflection should be enough to convince anyone that such suffering is widespread and often long-lasting.

It is not the illness or the prognosis that is the driver for euthanasia in any of these cases. It has more to do with the person themselves and how they decide to cope with their pending or existing situation. It really is about their choices.

Advocates of legalizing euthanasia reject "slippery slope" arguments as unfounded fear-mongering and claim that its use will always be restricted to rare cases of dying people with unrelievable, unbearable suffering. But, as the Netherlands and Belgium demonstrate, that's not what results, in practice.